Standing Committee H

[Mr. Jimmy Hood in the Chair]

Higher Education Bill

Jimmy Hood: I understand that this morning the Chairman allowed hon. Members to take off their jackets. The Clerk reliably informs me that it is warmer this afternoon than it was this morning, so if hon. Members wish to take off their jackets, they are welcome to do so.Clause 3 Expenses of Council

Clause 3 - Expenses of Council

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 9, in 
clause 3, page 2, line 18, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Collins.]

Tim Collins: May I put on the record how much I am looking forward to serving under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood? I am sure that your wisdom and forbearance will be appreciated by all hon. Members.
 In that connection, I wonder whether you would permit me, although it is slightly unorthodox, to make a point of order before I proceed. There has been a dramatic development during the three hours since the Committee adjourned. A Labour Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford), issued a press release this morning entitled ''MP gagged by Whips on top-up fees''. The hon. Gentleman said that he was promised membership of this Committee by the Labour Whips until last week—

Jimmy Hood: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. Will the hon. Gentleman please speak to the amendment?

Tim Collins: Very well, Mr. Hood. We shall pursue the matter elsewhere.

Alan Johnson: Interesting.

Tim Collins: Indeed. When the Minister reads the press release I think that he will find that his majority is three and not five.
 Government amendment No. 9—[Interruption.] I was getting excited because of that press release, but perhaps a little too excited. Opposition amendment No. 9 would delete subsection (5), which states: 
 Programmes and estimates under subsection (4) must be given— 
 (a) in the form required by the Secretary of State, and 
 (b) at the times required by the Secretary of State.''
We had an amicable discussion this morning and some hon. Members went off to make various inquiries. In the constructive spirit that was on display this morning—[Interruption.]

Jimmy Hood: Order. Government Front-Bench Members should come to order because it is important that I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, as it is for other hon. Members.

Tim Collins: I am most grateful, Mr. Hood.
 I was merely saying that this morning we had a generally constructive debate, as both sides of the Committee will acknowledge, and in moving my amendment I was keen to be equally constructive and helpful to the Minister. The Bill may have been drafted in advance of knowledge of the Government's latest initiative that we learned about this morning, which seems inconsistent with the wording of subsection (5) that we propose in our amendment should be deleted. In The Guardian this morning—I suspect that it is regarded with almost as much affection on the Labour Benches as it is on the Opposition Benches—the lead story was entitled ''Labour in retreat on targets'' and it stated: 
 ''The government will today signal a change of direction . . . promising to release the energies of state schools and hospitals by lifting the dead hand of central control.'' 
That is a wonderful and welcome U-turn. It then stated that the Prime Minister wishes 
''to escape the reputation for control-freakery that became established in the early years of his administration.'' 
In that new spirit of liberating the public sector from control-freakery and excessive control, we turn to subsection (5) which states: 
 ''Programmes and estimates . . . must be given— 
 (a) in the form required by the Secretary of State, and 
 (b) at the times required by the Secretary of State.'' 
One begins to see that that is not entirely consistent with moving away from control-freakery and some may say that it is a classic example of control-freakery taken to a great extreme. Given that the earlier subsections of clause 3 sensibly require that the arts and humanities research council should report to the Secretary of State on how it spends public money, which is an entirely sensible and worthwhile objective, I shall be interested to hear from the Minister why it is that instead of setting out those reports in ways that are mutually agreed or that are in accordance with certain times of the financial year, the council should be required to do so in a manner and at times specified by the Secretary of State. Does not that give the Secretary of State rather too much arbitrary power in such matters and unnecessarily reduce the autonomy of the council? Does not it risk leaving the council with the status of supplicant to and servant of the Secretary of State rather than esteemed adviser to him, which we would all prefer? 
 I understand that the article in The Guardian is not an isolated report and that the Secretary of State for Health has been explaining the change in direction at the heart of the Government's new approach to the public services. I gather that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will make announcements along the same lines either today or tomorrow. The 
 amendment was drafted in ignorance of what The Guardian would say this morning and the new direction that the Government would set out. None the less, I wonder whether the Government might accept that it has turned out to be unusually prescient and helpful to the Minister. By embracing our amendment, he can demonstrate even more so than we had ever suspected that he is at the cutting edge of new Labour and the new transformation, that he is one of those who will wield the sword Excalibur to chop off the head of control freakery. I invite him to do that by accepting the amendment.

Alan Johnson: I join the welcome to you, Mr. Hood, to fabulous Committee H—H for happiness and humour. I, too, am delighted to serve under your chairmanship.
 While the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) quietly sits down with a glass of water and a tablet to help him calm down after that wonderful peroration, I should explain why the Government believe that clause 3 is an important element of the Bill.

Jonathan R Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that history provides a warning to Tory MPs who suggest using swords in Parliament or in the press, whether or not they seek to represent South Thanet?

Alan Johnson: I agree with that. I shall turn the sword into a ploughshare and try to plough on with the debate. I refute the allegation that Labour Members treat The Guardian as some kind of tribune of the people. I believe that the phrase
''dead hand of central control'' 
was actually a journalist's phrase rather than that of any Minister this morning. The Government are keen to remove unnecessary restraints. 
 If I could just bring the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale back to earth, clause 3 requires that the arts and humanities research council give the Secretary of State programmes and estimates of its expenses. The amendment seeks to remove subsection (5), which says that the programmes and estimates must be provided in the form and at the times required by the Secretary of State. The reason for the requirement is simple: it is consistent with the arrangements for the seven other research councils, which are governed by terms that I believe stem from the Science and Technology Act 1965. I am not certain about the legislation, but the requirement has been in place for some time. As all the research councils submit their programmes and estimates—there is no question about that—it makes sense for the Secretary of State to ensure that they are delivered in a uniform and coherent manner so that we can ensure that they are all governed by the same arrangements. 
 I am advised that research councils are requested to provide, on a monthly basis, financial estimates against their budget for the year, and, in addition, they provide more detailed information on a quarterly and annual basis. They set out in their individual operating 
 plans for each year the intended distribution of funds against budget objectives, and, where significant, against specific research programmes. Rather than simply allow the research councils to submit that information in any way they like, it is sensible for the Secretary of State to set out a coherent pattern so that all the research councils submit the information in the same way. In terms of the monthly requirement, that is the arrangement that exists at the moment, and that is the arrangement that will extend to the arts and humanities research council.

David Rendel: Can the Minister give us further information about what happens to the reports when they reach the Secretary of State? What does he do with them?

Alan Johnson: I should think that he studies them carefully. I believe that they are published for the benefit of the House, but perhaps I will write to the hon. Gentleman and let him know the exact details of what happens.

Tim Collins: The Minister just said ''he'' studies them carefully. Surely the Secretary of State in question would be the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and therefore she.

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is also the Minister for Women, I should like to record the fact that we are talking about her. However, the arrangements will apply to future Secretaries of State, and the gender may well change at some time in the future.
 I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment, which he made an entertaining speech in support of, and if he does not, I ask the Committee to reject it.

Tim Collins: I am disappointed that the Minister did not feel able to take the opportunity to race ahead with his new Labour credentials when it came to this matter. Since he is perhaps slightly out of kilter with his Government, I register my disappointment, but I see no great necessity for pressing ahead with the debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Returns, reports etc. by Council to Secretary of State

Tim Collins: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in
clause 4, page 2, line 25, leave out
'give the Secretary of State'
and insert 'shall submit to Parliament'.

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 10, in
clause 4, page 2, line 28, leave out subsection (3). 
No. 12, in 
clause 4, page 2, line 30, leave out subsection (4).

Tim Collins: The amendments, all of which have broadly the same effect, address an issue that is similar to those we have just discussed, although not exactly the same. The Minister may well tell us that, once again, these are the arrangements that are in place for all the other research councils and therefore that they are, by definition, the best of all possible solutions in the best of all possible worlds.
 The present arrangements require various reports to be made to the Secretary of State. Our amendments propose that that information be submitted to Parliament instead, because we believe that it is important that Parliament's role as the primary guardian of the interests of the taxpayer is respected and understood. It is for Parliament, collectively, not through powers subordinated or transferred to the Secretary of State, to be in full possession of all the facts relating to the functions, efficiency and operations of what Members on both sides of the Committee agree will be an extremely important new creation: the arts and humanities research council. 
 The work done by the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General is widely welcomed by Members on both sides of the House. For their purposes, and to strengthen their role, it would be helpful for it to be clear, whenever Parliament has the chance to debate these matters, that we think that we should steadily but consistently increase the amount of material that is reported to Parliament, rather than simply to a Secretary of State. 
 Subsection (3) states: 
 ''The Secretary of State must lay a copy of any report'' 
he receives before each House of Parliament, but that is not quite the same as the council reporting to Parliament in the first instance. That is why our amendments would delete subsections (3) and (4) and ensure that the report goes direct to Parliament in the first instance. 
 We also note—this is the purpose of amendment No. 12—that, under subsection (4), the copy of a report that is laid before Parliament may include any comments that the Secretary of State may have on the report. Again, the Minister may tell us, and I am sure that he will do so in all sincerity, that the Secretary of State would merely wish to register items of interest, express the odd opinion or perhaps draw to the attention of his or her fellow Members of Parliament matters of special interest or concern. However, we perhaps all believe that it is helpful if Parliament reaches its conclusions on the basis of an unvarnished report from the arts and humanities research council, so that it can then consider and deliberate. The Select Committees of the House might wish to call the Secretary of State before them to express opinions at that point. If we ensure that the Secretary of State will control the timing of the presentation of the report, will be the recipient of the report and will publish it only when he has had a chance fully to consider it and to append comments, there is a danger that the clarity of the relationship between the council and 
 Parliament, and therefore with the taxpayer and the electorate, may become blurred in a way that could prove to be unsatisfactory. 
 I am sure that the Minister will say that in this, as in many other aspects of the Bill, the Government are merely seeking to mirror and reproduce the arrangements for other research councils. It is far from the purpose of Opposition Members to allege that other research councils are mismanaged or inefficient, but when we have an opportunity to consider these matters in Parliament, we may want to see whether we can make things even better than they are now. That is not to say that things are unsatisfactory, merely that they could perhaps be improved still further. 
 Therefore, I would welcome the Minister's comments on the question of reporting to Parliament as opposed to reporting to the Secretary of State. While he is considering that, perhaps he can give the Committee a little more information. How frequently, for example, would he expect the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament? Subsection (2) refers to the report being generated as soon as possible after the end of the financial year. Does the Minister therefore expect the presentation of the report to Parliament by the Secretary of State, perhaps with his comments, to take place within one, two or three months of receipt of the report from the council? Should we expect the council to produce a report only once a year, or might it produce a report more frequently in some circumstances? Can the Minister give an undertaking that, if the Secretary of State asks the council to produce reports more frequently, such reports would be laid before Parliament under the procedures set out in the clause? Finally, does the Minister take the view that it is unnecessary to review the research councils' present reporting structures because they have proved to be so successful, or would he be prepared to consider reviewing them perhaps not immediately, but over a four or five-year rolling period? 
 It would be helpful for all those concerned with what I am sure will prove to be an extremely successful entity—the arts and humanities research council—if the Minister can offer us clarification on the questions that I have raised. If he can, at that point I shall sit down.

David Rendel: I join the welcome to you to the Committee, Mr. Hood.
 I got a little lost when the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was asking all his questions, so I may be repeating one that he has already asked, but I do not think that I am. 
 Will the Minister also tell us, if he can, how many times over the past year a Secretary of State has added comments to any of the reports that have presumably been given to them by all the other research councils, before laying them before the House?

Alan Johnson: I shall argue that we want this research council to be consistent with the other seven, and that the procedures should be consistent with other non-departmental public bodies. The
 procedures in the clause, including those in the two subsections that the amendments would remove—the lead amendment would amend another subsection—are entirely consistent with those policies. The research councils do not distribute research funds in their own right; they distribute them on behalf of Government under the auspices of the Office of Science and Technology.
 The amendments would leave the arts and humanities research council in a different position from the rest of the research councils, but I take the point made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale that that is not a total argument for rejecting the amendment. However, the onus is on my hon. Friend to give a good reason why we should leave the arts and humanities research council in a different position. 
 This is not a bureaucracy argument; reports will always come before Parliament, but at the moment can they do so via the Secretary of State, with any comments attached that the Secretary of State might wish to add. In answer to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), no Secretary of State has ever added any comments to research by the research councils. That is not to say that they will never want to. At the moment it is—to use the term used by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale—the unvarnished report that goes to Parliament, but it comes to the Secretary of State first. What would happen if it went direct to Parliament? Surely it is sensible for the Secretary of State to receive the report and then to be obliged, as the clause requires, to lay that report before Parliament with any comments, if there are any, and so far there has not been the need for any. 
 I cannot understand why my hon. Friend thinks that that procedure is inefficient, improper or bureaucratic, and that point comes up in later amendments, too. It seems perfectly reasonable for a Government of whatever persuasion with responsibility for the distribution of funding by research councils to report to Parliament.

Tim Collins: It may well be that the Minister can offer an assurance to many people on that point. He has explained that successive Governments have hitherto always produced the report, and so far there has been no precedent of which he is aware of producing commentary on that report before doing so. Is he prepared to give the Committee an undertaking that, in future, under the arrangements, the Secretary of State will always produce the report without amendment, deletion or insertion, apart from the comments that we have already discussed?

Alan Johnson: Yes. I hesitate for a second, but I think that I can give that assurance. My understanding is that those reports have gone to Parliament, and my understanding of the Bill at the moment is that the Secretary of State must lay before the House a copy of any report. Subsection (4) says that the report ''may
 include any comments''. Parliament will see the unvarnished report, together with some comments by the Secretary of State.
 I can also give the hon. Gentleman the answer to several other questions. The reports are submitted annually. The requirement is that it is submitted by 30 November; that is the period after the end of the financial year by which the research councils have to submit that information.

David Rendel: What the Minister says raises some memories in my mind of the arguments that came up at the time of the Sharman report, when there were questions about how the accounts of various non-departmental bodies should be audited. The idea that the Sharman report came up with was that, since the money was originally voted by Parliament, all such bodies should report back through the National Audit Office to Parliament, rather than report back through their own private auditors. The situation that we are discussing seems similar, in a way. I am therefore surprised to hear the Minister argue as he does.

Jimmy Hood: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that accounts come under clause 6, not clause 4.

Alan Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Hood.
 My final point is that we are talking about an established principle for the non-departmental public bodies, re-established as recently as 2002—if we do not want to go back to the rather ancient legislation that established the Office of Science and Technology and the research councils—when Parliament agreed in the Communications Act 2003 that Ofcom would be governed by exactly the same procedure. It is a sensible procedure, and the hon. Gentleman, having raised his questions and got his assurance, can quite safely withdraw the amendment. If not, I hope the Committee defeats it.

Tim Collins: I found it quite useful that the Minister was able to give the assurance about the phrase that he and I have now both used—the unvarnished nature of reports—and on the basis that I am happy, on this matter at lest, to take his word for it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Pensions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Chris Grayling: I want to touch briefly on the issues in clause 5. In this morning's sitting the Minister was very helpful in clarifying the situation as regards the transfer of employment rights between the Arts and Humanities Research Board and
 the arts and humanities research council, and certainly managed to put on record a good reassurance for employees of the council.
 I ask the Minister to spend a moment addressing the issue of the pension arrangements for the board—and, subsequently, the council—employees, given the uncertainties that currently exist surrounding pension provision and retirement ages in particular. I know that there is a degree of anxiety in the public services at the moment about retirement ages, and I would be surprised if the Minister had not come across similar concerns in his own constituency. I seek an explanation from the Minister of the structure and nature of the current schemes, given that the board, as it is currently constituted, is a company and charity, established after the Dearing report in 1997. It does not, as I understand it, currently have formal governmental status. Subsequent to the changes that have been discussed today, and the final enactment of the royal charter, it will become a non-departmental public body. 
 I want to establish for the record in this debate whether the pension provision that existed up to now is separate from that which would normally apply to people within the civil service, to people who fall under the Government employment umbrella. Will that change as a result of the transition to the new status of the organisation? Are the employees of the board, and subsequently the council, likely to be affected by the review currently taking place across many parts of Government about retirement ages—whether the age should be 60 or 65—given the uncertainty that this is causing for a number of employees? I should be grateful if the Minister could take a moment to clarify those points.

Alan Johnson: My understanding of the situation at the moment is that nothing changes. The employees concerned are already members of a public sector pension scheme. Therefore, all we are doing in clause 5 is ensuring that employment by the arts and humanities research council is included among the kinds of employment covered by the Superannuation Act 1972. That Act provides Ministers with the power to make the necessary contributions toward employee pensions under the various civil service pension schemes. The employees of the AHRB are already covered by the Superannuation Act 1972 and this clause will ensure that once they are transferred to the AHRC their pensions will transfer and be unaffected. This is a belt-and-braces job—my understanding is that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 would cover them anyway, but this is an extra reassurance necessitated by the terms of the Superannuation Act 1972. Nothing changes for the employees, including their pensionable age. It may change through negotiation and discussion in the future, but when they transfer to this new arrangements, they do so with all their existing pension entitlement.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Column Number: 52

Clause 6Accounts and records of Council

Accounts and records of Council

Tim Collins: I beg to move amendment No. 124, in
clause 6, page 3, line 8, leave out
'give the Secretary of State'
and insert 'provide to Parliament'.

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 123, in
clause 6, page 3, line 10, leave out subsection (3). 
No. 129, in 
clause 6, page 3, line 14, leave out from 'General' to end of line 16.

Tim Collins: The Minister and other members of the Committee may have a small sense of Groundhog Day on seeing the amendment because it is similar to some that we have just debated. I am sure that the Minister will reiterate that he is not in a position to accept the amendment, which relates to changing reporting requirements from a report being made to the Secretary of State to a report being made to Parliament. We also seek to delete the strong language relating to things being prepared in the form required and at the time required by the Secretary of State.
 Now that we are discussing amendments to clause 6, which deals with the form in which the Secretary of State is likely to require accounts to be presented, I wonder whether the Minister will take the opportunity to let us know a little about the expected accountancy requirements and specifications that are likely to be laid upon the arts and humanities research council. Are they likely to differ significantly, or at all, from those that presently apply to the Arts and Humanities Research Board? Given that the explanatory notes set out that one of the purposes of the provisions is to streamline the research councils and enable the arts and humanities research council to benefit from the structures that have been put in place for the other research councils, is there a particular template or a preferred accountant? Does Research Councils UK have a collective accountant who operates for them? 
 Later on in clause 6, not least in the provisions that would be subject to amendment No. 129, there are references to the Comptroller and Auditor General, whose role is to look after the public interest and to be accountable to Parliament, but what is the Minister's expectation of the accountancy arrangements that the arts and humanities research council will put in place? Would the Minister explain whether his Department—or the Department of Trade and Industry, which in future will have responsibility for such matters—intends to use the arts and humanities research council and other research councils as a means of demonstrating best practice? That would encourage universities, with which the research councils would undoubtedly have many dealings, but which are somewhat more independent than the research councils, to follow a particular template. 
 The Government have an opportunity to establish whether they believe that there is a preferred accountancy model. Is there a preferred accountant 
 that the Minister is encouraging research councils to do business with? Would there be a joint letting of a contract to one or more accountants, or would the research councils be expected to make their own separate arrangements? What is the current position? Perhaps the Minister will be able to clarify that. 
 Does the Arts and Humanities Research Board, which we established this morning has an observer position at the moment on the board of Research Councils UK, have different accountancy arrangements from the other research councils, or has there already been a degree of integration, consolidation and consistency in that field? 
 Given that amendment No. 123 suggests that the Opposition have some reservations about the requirements relating to the form and the time being required by the Secretary of State, it might be convenient to point out to the Committee that there is a reference in subsection (4) to 30 November, a date to which the Minister made reference earlier. He pointed out that, on past precedents, that was when the Secretary of State receives a report on the previous financial year. 
 Subsection (4) states that the accounts must be 
''given . . . to the Comptroller and Auditor General on or before 30 November''. 
Amendment No. 129 would remove that specification. Does the Minister hope that that date would move forward? His earlier remarks established that material comes to the Secretary of State on or around 30 November. It is conceivable that material might go to the Secretary of State and to the Comptroller and Auditor General on the same day. Is that sensible? What has been past practice? 
 Under current practice, the Secretary of State receives the material on 30 November. The Comptroller and Auditor General could therefore have the report on the same date, without comment from the Secretary of State. The Minister has pointed out the potential advantages of the Secretary of State or his officials making a commentary on that material before they receive it. 
 What is the Government's view on the accountancy practices of research councils? How do they expect things to change with the transition from the board to the council? Can the Minister reiterate why there needs to be such a prescriptive format for the presentation of those matters and why he wishes to reject amendment No. 123. Can he develop his argument about the importance of 30 November?

David Rendel: I wanted to carry on from the point where I was interrupted earlier, Mr. Hood. You directed me to come in on clause 6, although I notice that clause 4(1) also mentions accounts.

Jimmy Hood: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not debating the Chairman's ruling.

David Rendel: Not for a moment, Mr. Hood. I would not dream of ignoring your ruling, which is why I sat down as soon as you made it.
 There is an interesting, if rather nice, constitutional point here about the precedents between the Government and Parliament. The Sharman report made it clear that Parliament votes the money for everything that the Government do, so reports on how that money has been spent should come back to Parliament. Clearly, Parliament may then question the Government about the way in which that money has been spent and how they handled the vote they were given. There is an argument to be made in line with the Conservative amendment. As that money has also been voted by Parliament—albeit indirectly—the reports should come back to Parliament in the first instance. Can the Minister comment on that matter?

Alan Johnson: I shall try to cover the points raised. The hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale and for Newbury have strayed into wider areas, but I should like to return to the amendment.
 Amendment No. 124 would remove the requirement for the AHRC to provide a statement of accounts to the Secretary of State and transfer that line of reporting to Parliament. That is the Groundhog Day element of the matter. It is sensible that the AHRC—like any other public body—should be accountable to the Secretary of State and provide statements to him. We have established that it is cheap to provide the money in that way.

Tim Collins: The Minister advances an interesting and radical constitutional doctrine. He has just said that all public bodies should be accountable to a Secretary of State, not to Parliament. Is that his view?

Alan Johnson: I hesitate to point out that, ultimately, the statement will come to Parliament via the Comptroller and Auditor General. That was the hon. Member for Newbury's point. It is right that it should be provided to the Secretary of State first.
 Similarly, in the case of amendment No. 123, as the Secretary of State will be allocating the funding, it is only appropriate that the AHRC provides statements of accounts for each financial year in accordance with the specification from the Secretary of State that we discussed in a similar amendment. 
 Amendment No. 129 would remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to transmit to the Comptroller and Auditor General a statement of accounts in a specified time period. As specified in clause 6, that time limit is there because it is consistent with the wording of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. That Act requires Departments to send their accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General by 30 November each year, and there is no intention of changing that requirement, which is governed by an act that governs all non-departmental Government bodies. 
 That does not differ from the AHRB arrangements. That is exactly how the AHRB operates, except that it has to go through a convoluted bureaucracy, because it is a company limited by guarantee. It reports as a company and to the Charity Commission as a registered charity. The provision will avoid making them go through that process. There will only, therefore, need to be a single report. In the 
 Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, 30 November is the latest date set out in statute, but best practice is to lay accounts before Parliament before the summer recess, and that is what the AHRC will be expected to do. That answers the point: the latest date that accounts can be submitted is 30 November, but best practice is that they are submitted much earlier.

Tim Collins: The Minister is elucidating the point very helpfully. As we all know, technology—in particular, information technology—is marching along rapidly. In the world of e-mail, it is much quicker to produce most documents than was the case some years ago. He referred to 30 November as being written into legislation in 2000. Is it his understanding that Government might be prepared to consider—not immediately or as part of this legislation, but in due course—the case for bringing the date forward? That would reflect the fact that it is now easier to produce reports than was the case some years ago?

Alan Johnson: My radicalism has run out. I do not think that I can go that far, but it is sensible for any Government to keep arrangements under review. If there is any technology that enables us to improve the accounting arrangements, we should use that.
 The other question that the hon. Gentleman asked was about which accountants are used. The AHRB has its own accountants. That will be the arrangement that will apply after it has converted to a research council. Those accountants work with the National Audit Office.

Tim Collins: The Minister has answered that part of the question. The other part of it was whether—either now that the AHRB is part of the research councils' family but not itself a research council, or in future when it becomes a research council—he would expect that the research councils collectively, including the arts and humanities one, would share the same accountant or, at least, the same accounting arrangements?

Alan Johnson: That would not be an expectation. That they use the same accounting arrangements is important, but I do not feel qualified to comment on whether they should use the same accountant. I am not sure whether there is sense in that arrangement, but I will pass the hon. Gentleman's comments on to the DTI.
 The hon. Gentleman again asks us to make changes. It is a probing amendment, but I hope that I have given some answers. Making the changes would be inconsistent with the operation and accountability of the existing research councils, all of which have the same requirements. It would also be at odds with the well-established framework of accountability for non-departmental public bodies where public money is concerned. It is right that the statement of accounts be laid before Parliament, as would happen under our proposals. The amendment would prevent their submission to the Secretary of State first. The previous set of amendments removed the Secretary of State altogether. 
 The set of amendments under discussion does not provide for the Secretary of State to receive the statement of accounts, instead it goes to Parliament; it removes him from asking for the accounts in a form and at a time when he requires; but it reintroduces him into the process to transmit each statement of accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is slightly illogical, but for no other reason than that it would be inconsistent with the current sensible arrangements. 
 Having given the assurances and the information that hon. Members requested I hope that they either withdraw the amendments or that the Committee rejects them.

Tim Collins: The Minister has once again been able to provide several important assurances and clarifications. I am not sure that we agree with him that our amendments were entirely illogical; after all we would not wish to make the post of Secretary of State entirely redundant. None the less, on the basis of his assurances and considering that he has advanced arguments that he has already used persuasively, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Northern ireland: reserved matters

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Tim Collins: I have two brief questions, as this is a relatively straightforward clause that relates to the inclusion of references to the arts and humanities research council in schedule 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which deals with reserved matters. Can the Minister offer the Committee some clarification of the status of the reserved matters under the 1998 Act? Does he imagine that the inclusion of the AHRC will be permanent alongside the other research councils, or will the British and Irish Governments and the various parties in Northern Ireland discuss it as part of a review of the Good Friday agreement? Are the provisions likely to be on the statute book for a very long time, or are they to be provisional and temporary?

Alan Johnson: I think that they will be permanent, not least because the devolved Northern Ireland Administration participated in the consultation on and examination of the issue. When we framed the legislation, we took into account that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), had written to me in July last year to inform me that he was content to make the AHRC a reserved matter in Northern Ireland. That is with the complete agreement of all those interested parties in Northern Ireland, and particularly the higher education community and local
 politicians who were involved in the original process. With that, I hope that the Committee will allow clause 7 to stand part of the Bill.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Charter of council

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Chris Grayling: Again, I have a quick point for the Minister to clarify. The clause deals with amending or revoking the charter of the AHRC. As the Minister made clear in the debate this morning, the measures that we are discussing do not formally enact the charter; it is a matter that goes beyond this place. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain that framework to the Committee so that we can understand the context of the clause.
 The clause deals with the powers to amend or revoke the charter and the operation of any amendment made. Although the creation of the charter is a separate process from the debate on the Bill, it is, none the less, a matter of concern and interest to Parliament, when mechanisms exist to amend the charter of the AHRC, if it is not necessary to bring amendments, changes or the ultimate decision to revoke back before Parliament as part of a further piece of primary legislation. 
 Therefore, I should be grateful if the Minister would take a moment to explain the legal framework and the relationship between the Bill and the charter, and say how any future changes might be made at a parliamentary level as opposed to a level that goes beyond this place and is represented by the charter's royal dimension.

Alan Johnson: I shall do my best. The Privy Council agrees the charter, so the council is established by royal charter. The clause states that nothing in this part of the Bill has an effect on any power that may exist to amend or revoke the AHRC's royal charter, which hon. Members have seen in draft form, and the operation of such legislation.
 The clause is a technical measure that ensures that changes can be made to the charter in future, as they can for any existing research council, to take account of changes in the way in which the council must operate. The Bill provides for the creation of a research council. The clauses are needed to establish the council on the same basis as other research councils. 
 As regards the constitutional issues that arise from the technicalities of changing the charter, I am advised that this is a technical process that applies in all such 
 Bills. I hope that that rather convoluted explanation is enough to encourage hon. Members to allow the clause to stand part of the Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 - Research in arts and humanities

Chris Grayling: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in
clause 10, page 3, line 39, leave out 'carry out or'.

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 14, in
clause 10, page 4, line 1, leave out paragraph (b). 
No. 29, in 
clause 10, page 4, line 11, leave out 'carry out or'. 
No. 30, in 
clause 10, page 4, line 21, leave out 'carry out or'. 
No. 31, in 
clause 10, page 4, line 33, leave out 'carry out or'.

Chris Grayling: This set of amendments addresses what is undoubtedly a puzzlement in the Bill and I seek an explanation about the wording in the clause.
 The words in subsection (1), which apply to England, have been replicated in subsequent subsections for the National Assembly for Wales, Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department, although I assume that the last provision would change if powers were redevolved to a reconstructed Assembly. The words refer to the Secretary of State's ability to 
''carry out or support research in the arts and humanities''. 
Most of that, particularly the latter part, makes perfect sense. What does not make perfect sense is the words ''carry out or''. At the very least the wording appears strange, given the potential dimensions of the clause. 
 We have some sense of the Secretary of State's academic background. He is a Cambridge graduate and was a distinguished member of that university who became a senior representative of the students' union. He achieved a degree in maths and economics, perhaps making his skills more suited to the work of the Economic and Social Research Council than that of the arts and humanities research council. Indeed, I looked through the board's work to try to identify which projects he might wish to carry out. Perhaps the project '''Meeting the Other'—Cross-Sexual Encounters with the Other World in Old Norse Mythology'', a recent piece of work, would interest him. The board's website lists a number of interesting and diverse projects, such as the ''The history and current status of 'bad language' as a concept in German folk linguistics''. Perhaps the obvious one is ''The Absurd in Literature''. 
 The board funds an enormous diversity of projects from all parts of the globe in the arts and humanities. Some are very worthy; others, to those of us of a more sceptical and cynical mind, are of more questionable academic benefit. There is not a great deal of mediaeval history in the projects listed on the board's 
 website, but I am sure that, in its new guise, and with the guidance that the Secretary of State will give it, that may change in future. Knowing the Secretary of State's particular interest in mediaeval history, he may have had that in mind when thinking about the ability to carry out research in his own right. 
 I seriously question exactly what use the Secretary of State and his Department will make of the right to carry out research in the arts and humanities. I also have questions about the role of the National Assembly for Wales in carrying out research in the arts and humanities. The same is true of the Scottish Ministers, and certainly of the Northern Ireland Department. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his Ministers are estimable people, but I am not entirely sure where this particular aspect of the needs of the nation fits into their portfolio. 
 Given the wording of the clause, can the Minister explain the purpose of giving the Secretary of State the right to carry out research? Why have the words ''carry out'' been used? That seems unusual. Why does paragraph (b) provide the Secretary of State with the power to 
''disseminate the results of research in the arts and humanities''? 
Why is that same power offered to the devolved bodies and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? I should have thought that disseminating research was a matter for the academic world and learned journals. It does not make an awful lot of sense for the Government to have that power.

Tim Collins: Has my hon. Friend noticed the contrast between the roles set out for the Secretary of State in this clause and the roles set out for the arts and humanities research council in clause 1? The council's role includes:
''carrying out, facilitating, encouraging, and supporting'' 
research; the Secretary of State has only half those abilities. The council's role includes ''advancing and disseminating knowledge'', but the Secretary of State will only disseminate knowledge. Does my hon. Friend think that it is interesting that the Secretary of State will not have the power to advance knowledge?

Chris Grayling: That is an interesting point. Nor, I see, does he have the right to encourage knowledge. He has been doing a lot of encouraging in recent weeks, and is probably very well versed in it—although I suspect not when it comes to encouraging research and in the arts and humanities.
 This is an odd clause. In my experience of working on Bills, they throw up clauses that on the face of it seem strange and to some extent incomprehensible. The Minister undoubtedly knows why the clause has been included and will give us a cogent explanation, but I am intrigued to know his justification for the provision that will enable the Secretary of State himself to 
''carry out . . . research in the arts and humanities''.

Alan Johnson: We have begun the process of the textual striptease that will take place in the debates on the three groups of amendments for this clause. It is proposed that we start by removing three words, then
 delete two sentences per subsection, and then, in the final debate, delete practically the whole lot. The clause would be left entirely naked by the time we had finished the striptease process.
 The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) talked about the Secretary of State as being the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale pointed out earlier that most references to the Secretary of State mean the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is quite a different person. I would love to carry out one, but I would have great difficulty in carrying out the other. 
 On the famous ''carry out'' amendments, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell is right, because the provision applies to Secretaries of State in all Departments that have any contact with the research councils. I asked the same question about carrying out. We are talking about the difference between a Department carrying out research itself within that Department, and a Department getting another body to carry out research for it. For instance—this may be the only example, but it is certainly a good one—''carrying out'' is used for almost all the research undertaken by the Department for Transport under the authority of section 5(1)(a) of the Science and Technology Act 1965. There is a similar provision in the 1965 Act. The Department does all of that research in house, and that is why the words ''carry out'' are there, as well as ''support''. That is the simple explanation. 
 The hon. Gentleman also wishes to remove the part of the clause that states: 
''(d) establish advisory bodies for the purpose of assisting the Secretary of State in matters connected with research in the arts and humanities, and
(e) if the Secretary of State establishes such a body, appoint its members on terms which include the payment of remuneration, allowances or pension benefits''.
 The Secretary of State often needs to establish advisory bodies on pieces of research. As that happens with the other seven research councils, we see no reason why it should not happen with arts and humanities. I understood the confusion of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell in his rather entertaining speech, but it would be perilous to remove the paragraphs.

Chris Grayling: The Minister is jumping a debate. My point was about paragraph (b), which states:
''disseminate the results of research in the arts and humanities''.

Alan Johnson: I apologise. I thought that amendment No. 14, which would remove paragraphs (d) and (e) from subsection (1), was part of this group. I am happy to point out the terms of the hon. Gentleman's amendments.

Jimmy Hood: Order. Amendment No. 14 would leave out paragraph (b).

Alan Johnson: I am now sure that we all absolutely know where we are going.
 If one thinks about the Department for Transport, for example—I can think of several other Government Departments to which this would apply—the dissemination of information is not done by the Secretary of State himself but within the Department. That is what is referred to in the clause. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment. If he will not, I hope that the Committee will defeat it.

Chris Grayling: Having heard the Minister's comments, I am not entirely certain that I fully understand the situation. In fact, it seems rather worse than I had anticipated. I accept that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has ultimate responsibility for the councils, but I had not fully understood that even carrying out research would fall within the DTI's remit. Doubly bizarre is the fact that, clearly, not just the DTI but potentially the Departments for Transport and for Culture, Media and Sport, the Northern Ireland Office, the Scotland Office, the Wales Office and, indeed, even the Department for International Development would apparently have the right to carry out research in the arts and humanities. It seems strange, to say the least, that such work would be carried out by a Department.
 As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said, the opening words in clause 1 about the remit of the arts and humanities research council refer to 
''carrying out, facilitating, encouraging and supporting''. 
Had clause 3 referred to any of those words or mentioned commissioning, it would have made more logical sense. 
 I find the paragraph totally bizarre. It is an unnecessary element in the Bill. I am delighted that the Minister saw the same incongruity that I did, but I am disappointed that he failed to persuade his officials that it should be removed. However, I do not see the point of detaining the Committee by forcing the matter to a Division. I had rather hoped that civil servants and Ministers in the Department would have better things with which to occupy their time than organising complicated research on what are sometimes wild, wacky and strange issues. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Chris Grayling: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in
clause 10, page 4, line 4, leave out paragraphs (d) and (e).

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 113, in
clause 10, page 4, line 15, leave out paragraphs (d) and (e). 
No. 114, in 
clause 10, page 4, line 25, leave out paragraphs (d) and (e). 
No. 115, in 
clause 10, page 4, line 37, leave out paragraphs (d) and (e).

Chris Grayling: We now come to the point that the Minister addressed in his previous remarks. It is obvious from reading the White Paper and the regulatory impact assessment that the Government are
 again creating more different bodies and organisations that are designed to play a role in the higher education arena. It is a matter of great concern because every time that the Government establish a new organisation, that organisation requires a building, a secretariat, IT equipment and accounting support. It has to produce publicity material and an annual report. Even when such bodies have relatively informal status as set out in the clause—
''advisory bodies for the purpose of assisting the Secretary of State in matters connected with research in the arts and humanities''— 
the probability is opened up that we shall once again see a proliferation of administration in Government. Costs are incurred that detract from front-line service, which means funds are not available to spend on our universities. That money should be spent on improving the situation in those universities, on extra research and on supporting individual students—postgraduates and PhD students—in their work. 
 I seriously question whether there is a need for additional advisory bodies. We are already finalising the creation of a new body to fill a gap that has been recognised by Government, with the support of all parties, to provide a proper focal point for research in the arts and humanities. That has been missing until now, and missing at the expense of an undue focus in the other direction on science, technology and related areas, which is necessary for the nation for strategic reasons. 
 The board provides a welcome element of the research mix. It provides a body that can filter funds provided by the central Exchequer to those on the ground carrying out research. That body can advise on which research should be supported. Indeed, its very remit is to advise on which research should be supported. Its remit is to identify academic excellence, research needs and gaps in our knowledge base, and it will attempt to find individuals in the project that can plug those gaps. 
 All that is estimable and enormously desirable, but given the fact that we are creating just such a body, which is there to be an expert body in the arts and humanities, to know who is good in that field, what is working well and to provide the mechanisms to judge where to put future investment in that research, why is it necessary to establish additional advisory bodies for the purpose of assisting the Secretary of State in matters connected with research in the arts and humanities? That would incur, not simply in the case I highlighted, all the associated costs that go with the creation of advisory bodies. Paragraph (e) refers to the appointment of members 
''on terms which include the payment of remuneration, allowances or pension benefits to or in respect of them.'' 
We go beyond that, because not only are we establishing such bodies for England, but we are paving the way for similar bodies to be established in Wales, under the auspices of the Assembly, in Scotland, under the auspices of Scottish Ministers, and in Northern Ireland, under the auspices of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and, ultimately, the Assembly. Therefore, we have a national research council that is channelling work, investment and knowledge throughout the country. It 
 is happy to deal with four different political bodies, but will be given the power to set up additional advisory bodies. Theoretically we could have four, 8, 12 or 16 further bodies specialising in this area. 
 Every time such an example comes before the House in Committee the Minister argues that it is innocuous and will provide an element of help in this area or that area. It happens again and again, and each time, costs and the cost of running Government mount. Money that should be diverted to front-line services—in this case to deliver excellent academic research and support departments that must be world leaders for the future of our nation—is being used at the centre by Government. That is wrong; it is a waste, and I do not see why the Government cannot simply channel all of their contacts with the research world through the council, and seek from the council the advice they need on that world. They should rely on the AHRC as the national expert to which they turn. There is no need to create additional bodies.

Phil Willis: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman, and I have a lot of sympathy with what he is saying. What would happen to the British Academy under his proposals—would it be disbanded?

Chris Grayling: I do not see the necessity to write into the Bill the ability to establish advisory bodies. If there is a need to treat the British Academy as a specific one-off, let it be so. What we are doing here is providing the powers for the United Kingdom Government and all three of the devolved Assemblies-cum-Administrations to set up advisory bodies in a blanket way, with no restrictions, no financial limitations upon them. We are opening the door for more initiatives, more schemes, more good ideas that create another panel to do something-or-other in the future. This is a blanket open-door to create yet more organisations, coming from a Government who have been responsible for a proliferation of organisations. The hon. Gentleman will have read the regulatory impact assessment document, and I find it striking that on almost every page, there is a new organisation, a new ring-fenced fund, something additional within the system that means that money will not flow directly to the front line, and that is to be regretted.

Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman says that this is an open door, and I can see the point that he makes, but one does not have to go through an open doorway. These are enabling powers. They do not insist that anyone sets up any type of advisory body in any part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, the point that he is making about regulatory assessment is surely a little over-egged.

Chris Grayling: It remains my view that powers to:
''establish advisory bodies for the purpose of assisting the Secretary of State'', 
when the Secretary of State already has a substantial advisory body for just that purpose, is opening the door to yet more bureaucracy. Given the fact that we are dealing with a Government that has a track record of pushing up spending on central units, task forces, 
 teams and advisory bodies at an extraordinary rate, to the extent that the cost of government has risen in recent years at a rate that is inexcusable and should be reversed, I see no reason to pass another Bill that gives them the power to do that.

Phil Willis: May I persevere on the issue of the British Academy? The funding for the British Academy under these clauses is being transferred, effectively, to the Secretary of State. There would, therefore, need to be some piece of legislation, or regulatory device to enable resources to flow from the Secretary of State to the British Academy. How would the hon. Gentleman resolve that problem? Does not this clause set up a framework that will enable that to happen? Indeed, is it not the case that, should any of the constituent bodies of the United Kingdom want to set up similar research bodies in future, this is the enabling legislation for that? Or is it more sinister?

Chris Grayling: I suppose that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question will come in the Minister's response. [Interruption.] A traditional support mechanism. The point is that the wording of this section is ''establish advisory bodies''. We are not talking about transferring existing bodies, or changing the funding arrangements for existing bodies, but about establishing advisory bodies. My reading of that is that it is a power to create something new and fresh. That is where I have a dispute with the Government. It is surely not necessary, when we are already in the process of establishing a substantial infrastructure of support, advice and knowledge on research into the arts and humanities, to have a blanket power to establish new bodies. If we are simply dealing with a single situation, let the Bill say that. It does not say that. It allows sweeping power to a Government that has been very good at using sweeping powers to create more and more initiatives at the centre. That is not necessary.

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman over-eggs this issue. He talks about a proliferation of expenditure and of committees. Clause 10 replicates the powers already held by the science research councils, so if there is a proliferation, we have not seen it. Regarding our arts and humanities, the ability to create these kinds of bodies is necessary to keep up with developments. As an example, who would have thought 10 years ago that we would need to have the kind of advisory bodies that we have now on cloning, including its religious aspects, and on the ethical issues of surrogacy? Those are very important issues. The Government need those bodies to advise on priorities, strategies and specific issues.
 The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell says that we have a track record of spending on all types of advisory bodies, but does not mention that we have a track record of spending on research. The Dearing report of 1997 was scathing about the reduction of our research base over the previous 10 years. The £1.25 billion that is the latest tranche of money under the spending review aimed to rectify that situation. I doubt whether in any of our competitor countries—the US or 
 elsewhere—would be arguing about the need to set up advisory bodies. The basic obsession would be ensuring the proper funding for research. We are proud that we put huge investment into research. That money has not been siphoned off into a proliferation of expenditure on advisory bodies. 
 There are a number of important strategic advisory bodies. I have mentioned some in the field of arts and humanities. While I would love to agree with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), I do not think that the British Academy is an advisory body in the context of this debate. However, we do have a number of such bodies. There is the Scottish Science Advisory Committee, which reports specifically to the Scottish Executive. There is the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, which reports to both the Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations. If anyone, including the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, has felt that they are unnecessary or a waste of expenditure, they have not raised it before. In fact, I think that almost everybody, across all parties in the House of Commons, would think that their work was necessary.

Simon Thomas: Would the Secretary of State give way? [Interruption.] I promoted the Minister a little prematurely, but then again the Secretary of State has been promoting himself recently as well.
 The Minister mentioned the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission. I believe that that is the body that has lately advised the Government on GM crops. That underlines the importance of the advisory boards and the vital role that they play in public policy making based on good scientific research.

Alan Johnson: I wish that people would get my title right, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the issue. That is an important example of the need to have an advisory body. The research councils would not perform that function, nor should they. In fact, they would benefit from the advisory groups that are set up under the clause. Clause 10 enables the Secretary of State, and each devolved Administration, to establish and appoint members of similar bodies for the arts and humanities, as they do for the other research councils. I hope hon. Members would be satisfied that those powers are necessary.
 It would be a failing of considerable magnitude not to allow the Bill unamended, because the basis of the argument of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell is misplaced. It is easy, in any environment, to talk about Government spending money on and paying salaries for advisory boards. I understand that that is fair game for all politicians. We must look at the essential element—what that money provides. In this case, there is no evidence of proliferation over the past 40 years with the other research councils. There is evidence that the work that the advisory bodies do is necessary and important. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Chris Grayling: I have listened to the Minister's response with interest. I obviously understand the issue that he raised about the number of ethical areas that have arisen in the past 10 years, where Government have sought guidance. The point about the situation is that the Government are delegating responsibility to the councils for the distribution of funding for research, for deciding research priorities and for considering where the gaps are. The additional advisory bodies impose an extra layer in that decision-making process. The Government refers first to an advisory body on, for example, mediaeval history to ask it what should be done, and then offer a mandate to the arts and humanities research council as to what it should do, which then goes through its own process of decision-making. Surely, in a simplified, streamlined system without a proliferation of organisations, issues concerning ethics and changes of knowledge and technology within the different councils could and should be addressed by them in dialogue with the Government. Is it really necessary to have advisory bodies?
 That is the nub of the question behind the amendment. It has become all too easy in recent years, when there is a difficult issue to address, for the Government to create an organisation of experts to think about it. Sometimes, there is a strong argument for saying that that process could and should happen within the existing organisational structures so that the additional layers of cost imposed by the creation of a multiplicity of organisations are not incurred. 
 I do not intend to delay the Committee and there will be plenty of opportunity for a future Conservative Government to address the proliferation of advisers. For now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Chris Grayling: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in
clause 10, page 4, line 9, leave out subsection (2).

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 27, in
clause 10, page 4, line 20, leave out subsection (3). 
No. 28, in 
clause 10, page 4, line 31, leave out subsection (4).

Chris Grayling: The final stage of the Minister's striptease exercise comes now with this group of probing amendments, and I want to ask some serious questions.
 The amendments would remove subsections (2), (3) and (4), which offer the National Assembly for Wales, Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department the power to 
''carry out or support research in the arts and humanities . . . disseminate the results . . . further the practical application of the results''
 and to set up the advisory bodies. The arts and humanities research council is a United Kingdom body set up to further, encourage and develop research throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that, in the context of the words of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) who represents Plaid 
 Cymru, the funds distributed by the council will go to institutions around the United Kingdom and will pick up expertise wherever it is in all our higher education institutions, which are first rate in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, as well as England. I share the sentiments espoused by the hon. Gentleman. 
 There is a serious question about the burden placed on the organisation in terms of the political reporting lines that it goes through. Subsections (2), (3) and (4) require it to work not only with the Secretary of State in London to give it a United Kingdom perspective, but with the Assembly in Wales, Ministers in Scotland, the Northern Ireland Office and perhaps subsequently the Assembly. There is a question about the degree to which it is sensible for a single nation—I believe that we are still a single nation—to have such a diverse involvement in the shaping of issues, many of which are not only national but international. 
 I read out a sample of research projects and many are not about the United Kingdom or Wales, but about Neapolitan literature, aboriginal rights in Siberia, trends in modern culture and literature, and so on. They are not usually specifically Welsh, Scottish or English projects. For example, they may include a project by academic or research students, at universities in Wales and so on, with a particular interest in and doing some work on Norse mythology. Such projects are of international and national importance; they are not projects of Welsh, Scottish, English or Northern Irish importance.

Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman may like to know that a recent project at the University of Wales in Aberystwyth—I came across it last Friday night after watching ''The Return of the King''—was a research project on ''The Lord of the Rings''.

Chris Grayling: That gives rise to many questions, including that of where the Lord of the Rings is.
 The hon. Gentleman makes a very serious point because that is a cultural phenomenon that goes far beyond Wales and England; it is an international phenomenon. There is therefore a question about the degree to which it is prudent to make the devolved Assemblies a reference point for the AHRC—individual, national focal points within the United Kingdom as opposed to the United Kingdom itself as a national focal point. It will place extra burdens on the organisation, requiring more people to travel to and fro, or to be based in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, dealing with officials in Departments in those countries as well as the Secretary of State and her colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills in London. Is that truly prudent? As the AHRC is a United Kingdom body, should it not mean that it is only a United Kingdom body? Its work does not necessarily need the participation of politicians in different parts of the United Kingdom. 
 I would be grateful for the Minister's clarification about the links he envisages and an explanation of why it is necessary to spread out the political contacts of the organisation to the degree foreseen in the measure.

Simon Thomas: I have waited my turn until now, when we have got to the meat of the matter and the last strip of cloth from the Conservatives' amendments has been unveiled and they stand arrayed in their anti-devolutionist glory. That is what their amendments add up to.
 The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell spoke to them in a very measured and considered way. He talked about the impact of regulation and the fact that the research council is a United Kingdom body, but he cannot conceive that, if the Secretary of State in England retains powers to initiate research in science or arts and humanities, the modern devolution settlement means quite rightly that those powers are devolved for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the Bill explains that. 
 The Minister mentioned the Scottish example, which has been used to develop strategic research development grants in Scotland through the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council in science. Who is to say what similar need will arise in Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland for similar pump-priming? The debate that I had with the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) was about the need—

Jonathan R Shaw: It seems a long time ago.

Simon Thomas: It was this morning. The debate was about the need to divert resources from time to time to help develop the research capacities of particular institutions or parts of the United Kingdom. The clause allows us to do that and it should therefore be supported. I hope that the Committee will resist the siren voices of the Conservatives, which seem to suggest that the matter is about getting rid of regulation, when it is really about getting rid of devolution and democracy.
 The clause rightly allows the National Assembly to consider research needs in Wales. If there is a gap that needs to be closed to allow institutions to enter the Research Council circle of funding and develop their ideas, we will be able to do it. 
 In my constituency I have the National Library of Wales, which is a research centre in arts and humanities. Next door to it is the Canolfan Uwch-efrydian Celtaidd. I do not know the English title but I assume that it would be something like the Centre for Advanced Celtic Studies. It is one of the major centres of Celtic study in the world. It is possibly related to the element of Norse that we discussed earlier as well. It receives money from the National Assembly and from research councils, and it shows how we can develop arts and humanities research particular to Welsh needs that reflects on a wider international stage as well. I hope that the Committee rejects the amendments and supports the Bill as it stands.

Jimmy Hood: Before I call the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), I just say to those on the Government Front Bench and their colleagues behind them, that if I can hear them whispering, they are whispering too loudly.

David Rendel: I rise to support what the hon. Member for Ceredigion has just said. The amendments are an attempt to remove devolution from the Bill, which would be sad to see.
 We can see some of the reasons behind the amendments, and I suspect that Conservative Members are concerned about subsection (3), which relates specifically to Scotland and provides no excuse for Scottish Members of Parliament to avoid voting on the Bill on the ground that it has nothing to do with Scotland. The subsection quite clearly states that it has something to do with Scotland. 
 That is even more interesting, given one hon. Member's attempt to raise a point of order earlier today. You quite rightly explained that it was not a point of order, Mr. Hood. He announced that the Government's majority on the Bill had sunk to three, since the voting pattern of the Conservatives on the matter— 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

David Rendel: I was speaking mainly to amendment No. 27. You will remember, Mr. Hood, that I was saying that the point of order raised earlier by Conservative Members showed that the Government's majority on the Bill might now be down to three. That raises an interesting situation, as four of the Government's majority on Second Reading was due to Conservative Members, one voting with the Government and two abstaining. One of those who abstained was the sole Scottish Conservative Member. If the clause were removed, that might help the Government—I hope that they will not vote to remove it—because it would enable that hon. Member to abstain again. However, that would not necessarily help the Liberal Democrats, because we want to put pressure on that hon. Member. Leaving the clause in the Bill would enable us to put pressure on him, particularly as it now looks as if that one vote may make all the difference to the whole Bill at the end.

Chris Grayling: I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, as he seeks to find possible motives for this set of amendments, but I assure him that the amendment is based on principle and concern rather than political strategy and intent.

David Rendel: Whatever the reasons for tabling the amendment, I should be delighted to see the subsection remain in the Bill. If it does, the pressure on that Conservative Member to vote next time round will be greater. I hope that we will put that pressure on him and enable him to vote in what I consider to be the right way.
 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): We have a change of act on this side, Mr. Hood, but as with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education, there will be no striptease. Rather, I shall try to strip away the arguments put by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. We have been here before. It is Groundhog Day, with three of us facing one another, as we have on matters of this nature in the past. I pay tribute to you, Mr. Hood, as our Chairman, and to your co-Chairman, and I look forward to serving on this Committee under your guidance.
 The amendments would place arts and humanities research in the devolved Administrations in an unreasonable position, and one that is very different from that for the science and technology research councils. They would remove the powers provided to the devolved Administrations to undertake activities in support of arts and humanities research and to fund such work. 
 We must consider how that the clause will benefit research. We should replicate what the Secretary of State proposes for England in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Those powers are among the key mechanisms by which we are implementing the recommendations of the review of arts and humanities research funding. 
 The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell made the point that the review said that there should be a duty to promote research into the cultural aspects of the various parts of the United Kingdom. That should be safeguarded. It is important that we take that into account when considering the amendment. 
 The devolved Administrations support the transformation of the Arts and Humanities Research Board into a UK-wide research council. We discuss those matters with colleagues in those Administrations in order to ensure that the transfer will be as seamless as possible. 
 Amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 28 would leave the devolved Administrations with no option other than to use an intermediary organisation to achieve their broader policy objectives in arts and humanities. Understandably, members of those Administrations do not consider that to be an acceptable position. When debating clause 1, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said that arts and humanities research deserves parity of esteem. I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment as a consequence. 
 The hon. Member for Ceredigion made an important point. People from my part of the country feel that the Conservatives in Wales say one thing about the devolution settlement, but in Committee they seek to amend any legislation that impedes its development. He will forgive me if I chide him a little. He speaks about devolving powers to Wales. His party is not in favour of devolving those particular powers to Wales. That is a mystery to me. 
 The hon. Member for Newbury also made an important point. We should remember that we are Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. People from all parts of the country have a right to speak on 
 matters that come before the House. It is a pity that the Conservative and Unionist party can no longer call itself the Unionist party because of its attitude to Scottish Members voting on matters. I will be careful not to stray too far in case I test your patience, Mr. Hood. 
 In that part of the Bill, we wish to ensure that the devolved Administrations have the same opportunity and ability to support research and development as the Secretary of State has in England. I hope that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell understands that point. That is the proper way forward. We recognise the need for parity of esteem for the devolved Administrations.

Chris Grayling: I have been listening carefully to the Under-Secretary's comments. I am delighted to see him again. It is the third time in 12 months that we have debated related issues. We seem to follow each other around. It is a pleasure to debate with him again and to return to some of the arguments and issues that we have discussed previously. One of those is the risk of duplication of work in bodies in different parts of the United Kingdom.
 I am reassured by the Minister's comments. Those measures concern commissioning research, and will ensure that resources that are available within devolved Assemblies are made available to Research Councils UK. I add a caveat. There is a danger that that will become not simply a method to deploy research money strategically for the benefit of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but a vehicle to centre research upon those countries. I hope that the three Administrations would not direct their research solely into matters relating to Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, but use the resources available to support specific strategic objectives, economic or otherwise. If there were, for example, a specific link between one of the creative industries and a higher education institution in Wales, it would be of benefit to the institution and the local economy if the devolved Assembly made resources available to encourage research that was supported by both that industry and the institution.

Don Touhig: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are very fortunate with the current state of the arts and media in Wales. S4C has done a great deal of work in the research and development of animation techniques. We have the international film school at the university of Wales college at Newport. We are outward looking. I have no doubt that my colleagues in Scotland and Northern Ireland take the same view.

Chris Grayling: I am grateful for the Under-Secretary's comments. As with all these things, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I hope that there are the right outcomes, but, as the Under-Secretary well knows, I part company with him over his broader comments. The structure of the Bill relates specifically to the UK—meaning Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Needless to say, the expectation is that the Secretary of State will do England. Some incongruities are created in the devolution settlement when powers are spread out as they are. Having said that, that debate is not for this Bill.
 Given the Minister's reassurances that this is a commissioning power, not a regulatory power, and notwithstanding my anxieties about the ability of the devolved Assemblies to establish bureaucracies alongside the Bill, I hope that it is purely about commissioning research for strategic purposes, therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Qualifying institutions

Tim Collins: I beg to move amendment No. 122, in
clause 11, page 5, line 10, leave out paragraph (d).
 This is a probing amendment to enable us to discuss the Government's intentions on the scope of the qualifying institutions. We have moved from part 1 to part 2 and it is important to have an early discussion about the Government's provisions relating to a new system for reviewing student complaints. The starting point, as with so much else in the Bill, is the White Paper published a little more than a year ago, which, at paragraph 4.11, states: 
 ''Reforms to give students a greater voice must include providing them with a fair, open, and transparent means of redress when things go wrong''.
 We would all agree with that unexceptional statement. It continues: 
 ''Last Autumn''— 
that was autumn 2002— 
''the sector was consulted on the establishment of an independent review of student complaints. The consultation revealed that there was substantial support from HEIs for an independent adjudicator to hear student complaints, and recognition that ultimately legislation would be needed to underpin whatever arrangements were put in place.'' 
That was the origin of this part of the Bill. The purpose of my amendment, which would delete paragraph (d), is to obtain some clarification from the Under-Secretary on the Government's intentions relating to scope. In a moment we will debate a Liberal Democrat amendment that would cover further education. However, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) cover universities and constituent colleges, schools or halls in universities, and 
''an institution conducted by a higher education corporation''. 
We seek clarification from the Under-Secretary about whether the Government wish that provision to relate to higher education and all higher education students, including those who are pursuing HE courses in FE colleges, or whether they are sympathetic, in a way that will become clearer on debating the later amendment, to those who argue for a spread to cover FE more generally. It is important that we are clear about our terms. Early in the White Paper—on the second page—it says: 
 ''The word 'University' is frequently used, for reading ease, as a substitute for 'Higher Education Institution'.'' 
I am sure that the Under-Secretary does not need to be reminded that many higher education institutions are not universities. It is important that students should be 
 clear about whether they have access to this new complaints procedure. I am sure that he will want to address that as and when the measures reach the statute book. However, it would be helpful if, in dealing with our amendment, he could say a word or two about the measures that the Government propose to take—assuming that this part of the Bill reaches the statute book—to publicise the new complaints arrangements and to do so in a way that will enable clarity among students and practitioners of higher education about who is and is not to be covered by the new arrangement. 
 The Under-Secretary will recognise that it is important, given that complaints can arise in distressing and urgent circumstances, that there is a great deal of clarity about who under the new arrangement will be the person or institution to whom a student in difficulties should turn. It would be helpful if he commented on whether the Government believe that they will have the full-hearted co-operation of all parts of the higher education sector in setting up the new structure. 
 The Under-Secretary will know that the phraseology used in the White Paper was carefully chosen, because there is a reference to ''substantial support'' from higher education institutions for an independent adjudicator. I read ''substantial'' as rather less than ''universal.'' Since the clause addresses the coverage of these new institutions, and if there are several institutions, as I suspect there are, that have suggested they are not initially persuaded of the merits of the new proposal, now is an opportunity for the Under-Secretary to explain whether he believes that those institutions will none the less seek to implement with enthusiasm and alacrity both the spirit and the letter of any legislation that Parliament chooses to pass. 
 In tabling the amendment, we seek clarification from the Under-Secretary on exactly which institutions and students he expects to be covered by the measures. What steps does he intend to take to ensure that all those concerned know where the borderlines are and who is are covered by the new institution as and when it is established?

Tim Boswell: First, may I say that this is the first time I have served under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood, and how pleasant it is? From those sittings that I have been able to attend, the debate has been thoroughly constructive, and I do not intend to spoil that now. I will be speaking very much within the terms of the inquiries of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale.
 On this rather narrow amendment, it would probably be inappropriate to stray too far into the overall scope and remit of the adjudicator. I have already indicated my respect for Dame Ruth Deech, whom I know personally as well as professionally. She is an immensely able person. My worries about the clause are not conceptual but relate to the fact that 
 there should be adequate resources to meet the work load, especially bearing in mind the fact that everyone must bed down with the system to start with. The office should not bite off more than it can chew. I have some reservations about scope if we are moving into further education colleges. 
 There are interesting definitional issues, which the Under-Secretary will need to clarify, about which students are covered. For example, not only is approximately 11 per cent. of the higher education student body resident in further education or franchised institutions, but there are people in higher education institutions at universities who are not doing higher education work: they are doing further education, mixed or short-term courses. It is important to clarify that. 
 The clause also relates to the institutions themselves, because not every institution has a unitary structure. Oxford and Cambridge notoriously have collegiate structures, and issues of liability may need to be considered. Something occurred to me only this afternoon, which I have not had time to check, about some legislation on student unions that I was involved in—it works, incidentally, much better than anyone had anticipated. We perhaps need to know whether the range of the adjudicator's coverage extends to complaints about student unions, which are part of the university but are not run by it. 
 There may be other issues, for example, with regard to a contractor who works for the university, but is not part of its establishment, whose conduct has damaged, or allegedly damaged, an individual. Those are beginning to sound like lawyerly points, which I am not qualified to expatiate on, but Ministers must give thought to how this measure will work in practice. That is my major concern. 
 The subsidiary concern is that we should explore the areas that are covered by this provision. As I understand it, it is not a matter of first instance. It is a question of advising students to use the domestic complaints procedure of the institution itself, and to take it on to a higher level only if they are dissatisfied. I mention that, because I had recent parliamentary question and answer exchanges with the Under-Secretary about the old student charter. He quite reasonably—I was not offended by this—said that it had in effect fallen into desuetude. That is the technical phrase that I think we should use. The charter had been discontinued, and it was up to institutions to do their own thing. In one sense, that may well be right. Nevertheless, this measure is imposing an element of central control, or at least accountability on the system. The Under-Secretary needs to explain the relationship between those. 
 The other area that chimes in with that concerns the various jurisdictions—with regard not only to level and institution but to type of complaint. I do not imagine that Dame Ruth and her staff will be terribly keen to examine issues such as the temperature of the pizza, or whether there were two added toppings in the university refectory. That would be facetious and inappropriate. 
 However, rather more seriously, the Under-Secretary needs to walk the Committee through the type of complaints that are appropriate to be referred to the adjudicator, those that are entirely proper to the academic world and how they are to be dispatched—because they are precluded from the Bill—and those that might relate to the courts. They might relate to the law of contract—and I seek, perhaps, the advice and support of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) in this—and whether there is a proper case for a student to sue a university. I realise that even—

Jimmy Hood: Order. I draw the hon. Gentleman back to the amendment, because I feel that he is also trespassing on the clause.

Tim Boswell: I am grateful for that, Mr. Hood. I think that it might just be helpful at this point for the Under-Secretary to say what is covered by the provision and how it chimes in with other areas including recourse through the courts. However, this might not be the place to do it and I leave it to his discretion and to yours, Mr. Hood. In addition, although I know that this is already subject to a separate amendment, there is a question about its interaction with the disability inclusion in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, and how that is to work.
 I will make one final point about enforcement. In a sense this is prompted by my experience of SENDA, in which there are rather different regimes at school, college and university levels—one recourse being through the courts, and another through a special educational needs tribunal, for example. If there are different vehicles for recourse or redress, it may well be that according to the ease and cost of those, there are different take-ups of the particular remedies. They may work in different ways, and arguably may be inequitable. 
 However, it is quite important that the Under-Secretary explains how redress will be achieved in those various fields, and how the adjudicator's judgments are to be reached and acted on. There may be good reasons for this, and I do not want to debate the substance of it, but if a college feels unable to comply with an adjudicator's decision we need to know who gives teeth to it and what further recourse is available. 
 Those are genuinely motivated concerns on how this measure should work. I think that across the Committee we all want the measure to work in the best way possible. The only caveat that I issue to the Under-Secretary is that we need to ensure that the institution is adequately resourced and working properly before we think of extending it to cover further ranges of potential difficulty.

Simon Thomas: I will speak briefly, because I agree with many of the concerns already raised and I am looking forward to the Under-Secretary answering some of those. I have two points to make on what a qualifying institution is. First, what is the position of
 private universities? I think that there is only one in the UK at the moment, but in a tuition fee world there is potential for things to change.

Tim Boswell: I am sorry to come back so quickly. The Under-Secretary may also need to consider a point about which he and I have corresponded: the question of corporate universities such as Unipart university or Barclays university. They exist within companies, but call themselves—if only for marketing purposes—universities, although they may not have the right to a university title. They might or might not be within the remit of the issue.

Simon Thomas: I assume from what the hon. Gentleman said that those universities award degrees from other institutions, but run the training themselves. I agree with him on that point.
 My second point is that it would be useful to hear about the position of overseas students and students from the European Union. My reading of the Bill is that there is no differentiation at all in relation to the origin of a student, and that an overseas student studying at a qualifying institution would have exactly the same rights as a European Union student. It would be useful to have that explained so that we know what the remit of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator will be. As we progress to the next couple of clauses, we will see that its work will grow and grow. 
 Any Member who in their constituency capacity has dealt with a serious case of conflict between a university and a student, as I am doing at the moment, will know how difficult it can be to resolve such problems. Clearly, we need a clearer system of dealing with that. Some questions remain, and it would be useful if the Under-Secretary explained them.

Ivan Lewis: I welcome this first opportunity to serve on the Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood. I feel like a substitute who has just come off the bench towards the end of the game, with my team well ahead and the manager prepared to give me an opportunity. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education for agreeing to assist me by taking on the less significant parts of the Bill, which will not generate any media attention.
 It was interesting listening to Opposition Members referring to advisory groups. The Leader of the Opposition is advised by his three immediate predecessors; we understand why Conservative Members would not be keen on too many advisory groups. 
 Some important issues have been raised about the amendment. First, there is widespread agreement in the sector that this is a long overdue reform. That does not mean that there is unanimous agreement or total consensus, but there is sufficient agreement that this is the direction in which we ought to be travelling. We ought to applaud and commend the sector for having 
 taken voluntary steps and gone a considerable part of the way so that we are able to have this debate. 
 The points raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and others focused on what the amendment focuses on: the definition of higher education institutions. It is important that we clarify that. As defined in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, they are universities—including colleges or institutions in a university, institutions conducted by a higher education corporation, and institutions designated for funding by a higher education funding council. In the context of the amendment, it is important to say that there are 23 designated institutions in England and Wales. It would be wrong arbitrarily to exclude students in those institutions from having access to the complaints process. 
 In addition to that definition, it is important also to refer to higher education students in further education colleges who are taking courses leading to an HE degree if the complaint is relevant to a specific action of the HE institution. If someone is studying an HE course in an FE college and the complaint is to do with the actions of the FE institution, it would not be a matter for this complaints process, but if the complaint referred directly to the course of study, which is the responsibility of the HE institution, it would be covered by this complaints process. Any student studying in an HE institution, regardless of the course that they are taking, will also have access to this process. 
 The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale asked about publicity, promotion and clarity to enable students to understand exactly their rights and entitlements. The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, which is about to be established, will have responsibility. That will be part of its role, function and relevance. It will have a desire to publicise its activities to students. We also expect that individual institutions will make absolutely clear to all their students the different stages in addressing a grievance. 
 Several other issues were raised: the definition of a complaint; the ability of students to get redress while a complaint is being considered; the actions and extent of the powers of the adjudicator; and the status of private universities. Those matters will be directly addressed by other amendments in the course of our debates on complaints, and it would be more appropriate to deal with them then. With that, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Tim Collins: We are delighted to hear from the Under-Secretary, who has broken his Trappist vow of silence. He has done so successfully and persuaded me that it would be sensible to withdraw the amendment. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Phil Willis: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in
clause 11, page 5, line 10, at end insert
'; and
(e) any institution offering further (post-16) education'.
 May I say how delighted I am to see you in the Chair, Mr. Hood, and to see the Under-Secretary leap to his feet to defend the Minister? I have no wish to press to a vote any of the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury and I have tabled. We simply wish to probe the Government on the whole issue of student complaints, and I hope that in that spirit we will have a good exchange and engage the Committee on several key issues. 
 We have not tabled the amendments, which may come back on Report if a satisfactory exchange is not forthcoming, in order to say to universities or FE colleges that they are failing in their duty to address student complaints. It would be wrong to send out a message that massive numbers of complaints by HE or FE students are not being properly dealt with through appropriate procedures. It is fair to put that on the record. I assure the Association of Colleges that this amendment, about which it seems to be incredibly concerned, is not an attack on it. The association makes it clear that some 94 or 95 per cent. of its students say in survey after survey that they are very happy with the product they receive, and similar satisfaction appears to come out of surveys of HE institutions as well. 
 The debate is about those on the margins, or on the edge. My contention is that the number of complaints is likely to grow as we enter a market in both further and higher education, and as the cost to the consumer—the person buying the course—increases, their need for satisfaction with what they are receiving will increase. I promise you that I am not straying, Mr. Hood—you would not allow me to. When OFFA is introduced into the system, and there will be plans and perhaps some social engineering in terms of how we get people into our universities and colleges, a whole area of complaint will arise around the issue of admissions. That is not tackled anywhere in the Bill, and certainly not in the clauses on complaints. 
 What worries me about setting up an Office of the Independent Adjudicator simply for higher education is that it makes further education students seem like second-class citizens. It is clear that if, under section 72(1) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, 55 per cent. of students in an institution are on higher education courses, the institution is covered as far as the new adjudicator is concerned under the Bill. If the proportion is less that that, it will be excluded. That could give rise to a ridiculous situation whereby students from higher education institutions studying for foundation degrees in FE colleges are not protected. The Under-Secretary has constantly said that he expects the growth in numbers of about 250,000 people between now and 2010 in the higher education marketplace to be caused mainly by those on two-year foundation degrees, most of whom will receive their degrees in FE.

Tim Boswell: I would like to challenge the hon. Gentleman slightly on his point about there being no protection under the law. I do not think that he would wish to make difficulties for the Committee on the subject, but he may want to question whether the measures will work. If a student has a complaint in relation to a further education college, whatever course they are on, they have the option, if they feel that the college has not met their complaint adequately, of having recourse to the learning and skills council. It is important that that point is clarified before the debate proceeds.

Phil Willis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. What he mentions is, quite frankly, one of the reasons why I want further education colleges to be included. If he is saying that an instrument of Government, appointed by the Secretary of State—and that is what the learning and skills councils are—is the natural adjudicator and the final port of call for complaints, I am sorry but I do not agree with him. I believe that we ought to have an independent complaint system in both further and higher education. That is not to cast aspersion on, or to doubt the integrity of, those concerned. I just do not believe that that system gives the air of independence that we are seeking.
 If we are looking ahead—and any piece of legislation has to; we will certainly be doing so with top-up fees on Thursday and for the two weeks after that—we will have to look at the system of delivery, and what level three and level four qualifications will be in future. There will be none of the simple demarcation lines that there have been in the past in further and higher education; we will be moving on. To be fair to both Ministers, they constantly make the point that we need a system in which students flow between FE and HE. Our policy, which we have laid out, is that we want a sort of scaffold in terms of courses and qualifications. Students could then move along and come down as they need to gain new skills on their journey and progress through lifelong learning. 
 The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) has already pointed out that somewhere in the region of 11 or 12 per cent. of students doing higher education qualifications already do them in FE institutions. I have made the point that if another 250,000 students are added by 2010 we will see a rapid rise in the number of students in FE colleges doing higher education courses. On those grounds alone, there is a sound argument to say that FE should be covered by a single adjudication system—I shall come on to the issue of ombudsmen on a later amendment—rather than having separate systems for two sets of students. This position would point out quite clearly that if one is a higher education university student, one is elevated, and if one is an FE student, one does not have the same recourse to those complaint support mechanisms. 
 We already have, within FE, an unregulated market in terms of fees. If this Bill goes through we will have the anomaly of a regulated market, or a semi-regulated market, in higher education, but not in FE. I ask that the Government consider seriously whether FE 
 colleges and the students within them should be covered, rather than just higher education institutions—rather than having the situation in the 1992 Act updated to a 2004 Act—and whether all post-16 students should be covered by an independent adjudicator system.

Tim Collins: There were a couple of things that the hon. Gentleman said that I could agree with. I agree that it is very important that we should all put on record that we do not believe that there is a serious problem in the relationship between colleges of further education and their students. I was also encouraged by how he started, when he said that this was only a probing amendment. However, I must confess that I was a little puzzled, because he then explained at some length why it was an extremely important amendment, and said that he reserved the right to return to this matter on Report, which implied that he was not really probing, but actually means it. If he does mean it, he should not.
 The Association of Colleges made a very clear statement on this—in fact, the hon. Gentleman referred to it in passing himself—in which it says that further education colleges have established effective complaints procedures, and that the scheme is approved by the Learning and Skills Council. It also says: 
 ''It would be extremely unsatisfactory for FE colleges offering HE to be subject simultaneously to two different complaint regimes.'' 
That is what the hon. Gentleman is proposing. The Association of Colleges also says that it would like confirmation that it is the Government's intention that the new student complaints procedure should apply only to universities and other higher education institutions. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give them that confirmation.

Phil Willis: One of the main thrusts of the amendment is that there would not, in fact, be two separate systems. There would be a single system covering all FE and HE students. The hon. Gentleman might disagree with that, but I would be grateful if he did not misreport me.

Tim Collins: All I would say is that I am not misreporting the hon. Gentleman, I am accurately quoting what the Association of Colleges thinks about his amendment. I presume that we would agree that members of the Association of Colleges are capable of reading amendments. They are not supportive of this one.

Simon Thomas: In clause 12, under qualifying complaints, the hon. Gentleman will find that, under the present regime, those studying HE courses in FE institutions will come under this independent adjudicator. Therefore, there are two systems at work here, and I think the point made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is correct. [Interruption.]

Tim Collins: Not on FE matters, as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry says from a sedentary position. The clear point here is that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said that the amendment was designed to probe. I hope that that is the case. I have to tell him that if he does push it to a vote, he will not have Conservative Members' support.

Ivan Lewis: It will be a struggle to debate the definition of probing, so I shall leave that until another time. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough raised a reasonable point, which generated a worthwhile debate. It is true that the Association of Colleges reflects the widespread view that is shared by the Conservative party that, if it ain't broke, why fix it? By that, I mean the existing complaints process within the further education sector.
 I say to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough that we agree about the progression of students from further education to higher education, although I suspect that he meant to use the term ''climbing frame'', not ''scaffold'' in that context. 
 The hon. Gentleman has a fixation about moving to a market system and linking it with the desire of users of public services in a modern world to have high expectations of those services. I assure him that, whatever model we choose to adopt or refer to, at the beginning of the 21st century users of public services rightly have high expectations. We as politicians cannot afford to ignore those expectations or to avoid sometimes making it clear that we expect providers of those services to be accountable and transparent. 
 If I have one criticism of the hon. Gentleman, it is that he frequently—almost entirely—sides with the provider, not the user. It is more important that we achieve the right balance between the providers and users of public services in the modern world. However, we certainly agree that further education students must not ever be regarded as second class. That is one of the reasons why I resent the fact that some politicians and commentators want to have a choice in our society between higher and vocational education. That is an entirely false choice in a modern world. We need more people who are skilled to a high level and more graduates to meet our social and economic imperatives.

Graham Allen: Towards the end of the proceedings, I wonder whether my hon. Friend will set some homework for the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. If we do not currently have a market in higher education, what do we have? It may be an imperfect market, but there is a market, so we need to intervene. I asked my hon. Friend that question on the Floor of the House. Will he ask the hon. Gentleman to take it away for the next 48 hours and perhaps come back with an answer?

Ivan Lewis: I was not aware that part of my brief was to set homework for members of the Committee. I am delighted to see my brief expand even further and I urge the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough to take up my hon. Friend's challenge.

David Rendel: I thought that recent reports in the newspapers stated that homework has now been discredited.

Ivan Lewis: Even if the Liberal Democrats did any homework, that would not make any difference unless they were studying various spending commitments that the Prime Minister likes to discuss from time to time on a Wednesday.
 We share the aspiration that further education students should never view themselves or be seen by us as second class. Let us consider the complaints process to which further education students have access. Obviously, students can go to the institution. If they exhaust its procedure and are not satisfied, they can go to the local Learning and Skills Council. If they are still not satisfied, they can contact the national Learning and Skills Council and then, as a result of new legislation, they can contact through their Members of Parliament the parliamentary ombudsman, who is an entirely independent person. 
 Moreover, in many ways, further education students know more about the choices that are open to them—before they make them—than university students. Let us consider the role of Ofsted and the Adult Learning Inspectorate when inspecting further education institutions and the provision of reviews by the learning and skills councils, which is an ongoing monitoring of the quality of provision in further education institutions. 
 It is legitimate and reasonable for the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough to raise such an issue, but our view is the widespread view of the sector. As he knows, it is the view of the Association of Colleges, but it is also my experience that the existing complaints processes work exceptionally well in the further education sector. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Phil Willis: May I put the Under-Secretary right on one thing? Where an amendment would extend students' right to a complaints system, it can hardly be classed as being for the producer interest. I hope that he will take his homework away and realise that there is a difference between the two.
 If the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) thinks that increasing the market in higher education by introducing costs into it does not in fact accelerate the move to a market system in higher education, he needs to think again. For the record, I abhor the fact that for the 30-odd years that I have been in teaching—working with youngsters from poor backgrounds—those youngsters have not been able to access higher education because of an unofficial market. I would like to do something about that, not make it worse.
 Returning to the amendment, it is convenient for the Conservatives to misread the letter from the Association of Colleges. It is also wrong that the Under-Secretary does not recognise that both NATHFE and the Association of University Teachers, who work directly with students, support the amendments. If we are going to have a balanced argument, we should not consider the issue purely from the view of college principals and vice-chancellors. The debate on the Bill has all been about what vice-chancellors want, not about what students want. 
 However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Twigg.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Five o'clock till Thursday 12 February at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.